Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Okay, great.

On meeting order. Where's my agenda? I don't have one. Thanks. We'll call it. We have a quarter? Quarter. We do. Good. Then first, I sound it for you. I need work and consideration.

So yeah, we have a number of these today, so we're going to move these along. Fort Ann, this is a site on a, it's about a six acre parcel. It's an existing business that is expanding into Fort Ann. They want to build a couple of buildings to support, they actually build actually fairly high-end docks for residences in our Bay of George area. So they're expanding that business, building suit buildings, some small, a little bit of trailer storage, and they built the first building, I think the first year, and then the second building a bit later. They don't expect to see customers here. They'll be at the other site. So the traffic will simply be in the bridge.

Okay. Questions? Yeah, it's right next to the found barn in 48th. Okay. Any questions?

The matter of all, she's there, isn't her, yes.

Next, Slickfin. Oh, wait. Somebody's got a second. Somebody's got a second real quick. I'll second. You got a second? All in favor? Good night. Slickfin.

Slickfin. As you may know, what they're doing right now is they occasionally have food trucks that are parked out over the floor right in front of the building. I'm not sure if it's a four-in route. or whatever village concern, or whether it's just that they want more consistency, but they are looking to park and operate a food truck, put it in the back of the building, which would be down towards the canal. I did refer this to the sewer district, because when you look at the EAF, and then you look at what they intend for water and wastewater disposal, I don't know what kinds of food they'll be preparing here, but it says Department of Health regulations require that they keep everything in 50-gallon buckets. So the sewer district director asked us to remind them that it is not in compliance with sewer district regulations to empty anything into the sewer district. So they have to ensure that they're properly compliant with sewer district regulations with any waste that they create from the food product.

You probably could see the food truck from the road because if you think about, so there's standing the sidewalk and then there's like a steep slope down.

That's fenced off right now. You can see back there, but you wouldn't be able to walk back there. You'd have to walk through the building, unless they plan to change that. But I don't see any indication of that in this application.

Well, the food truck is oftentimes, by sight, stopped. You can't see from the road, and they have to go through the building. I see what you're concerned about.

It's also unclear if they themselves plan on operating the food trailer or if it will be some kind of concession. All this is for is basically replacing the trailer to the rear of them.

Okay, what do I do with this one?

Say it's their food. I don't know who's operating it. My guess would be they're hiring somebody to do it. contracting somebody to actually prepare it but the impression that i get from this is that it's it's their truck right so it looks like from there i'd make a motion that the matter of local concern with the notation uh coordinating here to sewer district we've got a second yes okay one second any further discussions

All in favor? Aye. Hearing. Moving on to Irving.

So Irving has an application in to demolish what is currently an existing warehouse that's right, it's again, directly at Butts Roof Floor. And this has been part of their long-term plans for some years now. The application indicates that they intend to to submit an application later. So this is about a 55,000 square foot building they'll be demolishing. And they intend to replace it with 60,000 square foot building. But that is not in this application. They're simply telling us what they're willing to replace it with. So application is for central demolition. And then again, they also intend to do some streetscape improvements in addition to this.

There it helps, Paul. Go ahead. It turns on this one. It does say pathologically sensitive areas and close to Rodriguez Island or there's nothing there. No.

The entire basin down there around Fort Edwards also, and this will come up with another project as well. Because it's adjacent to the canal, canal itself is its own historic district, basically. So their EAF mapper does indicate that they're aware that it's an insured sewer district. I am not familiar with the regulations as to Exactly when they would have to conduct ship overview. If there was grant funding to do a project, they would absolutely have to do ship overview. But this is a private demolition. And I'm not sure. Nor am I sure if it's up to us to point that out or if it's up to the village.

I see what she means.

Can we send that back as a matter of we'll confirm the notation on that?

Good.

Then I would make a motion that we send that back as a matter of we'll confirm that notation.

So moved. Do I have a second?

Second.

Do I have a second? Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Third. Rum Bellies.

Rum Bellies. So, Rum Bellies, if you're not familiar with it, so it's the old Glens Falls basement down on Route 4. Rum Bellies bought it, renovated it, and turned it into a restaurant. It is, it's lands behind it, directly above the canal. There's quite a bit of parking down there, and I believe that there has been some contention over the fact that that parking is, in fact, owned by the building. I drove by there. Right now, they have cones set up along the drive, and what Brumbelly's intends to do is fence it off. So, Tim, I sent you a note when I sent this out asking that you... basically to take a look at this map because what I'm unclear on is there is a right-of-way to either side of the building, but also on our parcel maps, Savannah, you've seen this. So here's the building. This is Waters Edge Lane on this side. There's Waters Edge Lane on the other side. This seems to indicate that the right-of-way versus the parking lot this does not my concern and this would be tim's question is does this fencing represent public safety issue if public safety were ever need to get down to that penalties i don't know what access or is there now i don't know and And I don't know if these are private rights of play or municipal rights of play.

That's the big question that I would have for Dan, because if it's a private right-of-way, if they don't have any standing to say anything, is it the public right-of-way?

Well, I assume the right-of-way is for, I mean, the canal corporation owns a portion that they might be fencing off. So the question is going to be if they fenced that off. Yeah, I figured the state senate could be terribly happy about that.

blocking access to the canal.

Right. Because they don't see other than Saturday Lane, they ain't got no way to get down from.

Yeah, that's the only way unless you walk down there from either side on the, from the canal itself. Down there, they have the sidewalked off nice area.

which right now, the village is being prevented from even mowing it, because they have posts on the lawn. And unless, I gather Grumbelly's objected to removing the posts so that they could get it mowed. So the male corp land is still being mowed, but there's kind of like the edge of that grassy area where the poles are that they can't take the poles out and mow because they belong to predators. So, I mean, Again, there may be some village concerns, neighbor concerns, but I would see that as board network issues. My concern is public safety issues, and if there's anything, we have to be aware of.

It's tough to tell based on the map. I mean, right, looking at the parcel map and then looking at the drawing where they have it in there. I mean, it almost looks like that page that goes into...

Yeah. The map that they supplied said right-of-way water's edge on both sides of the building. But we don't, I don't remember that owns that right-of-way. It's public or private.

I would assume in Alcorp has something to do with that. That would be my guess. I guess I'd be comfortable sending it back as a matter of open concern with a couple of notations, one in coordination with canal operation, and two, ensuring that in the event of an emergency, first responders would be able to have some access there, whether it's a gate, whether it's something else, if they're going to put some type of fencing house.

Is that a point of motion? Yes. Second. Second.

Second.

All right. Very. Greenwich.

Greenwich is doing some zoning. Essentially There are a couple of parcels that got included in the PUD, which is planning development. And they did some minor zoning changes. Actually, they also changed some medium density residential zoning. Again, there are only a few parcels of action.

Supervisor issues from your since the partial in your head.

Any more notes about that? Talk about this.

Okay. Any other comments or questions or thoughts? Watch this end of time. Are you making it? I'll say it.

By the way, I forgot to point out, I do have large-scale maps there. One of them is the Fort Ann Project.

Happy vote.

Okay, that's the last one. Wow, that's probably the next one is for Edward. Oh, it's yours. So this is a currently vacant building that's right next to the rainbow dog grooming place down. It used to be Fitzy's Barber Shop. So to be honest, I'm really not sure why the village sent this to us, because there is no impact to the site at all. It's simply interior renovations. They are turning it into, this is the building. One half of the building will be law offices for a couple of people, and the other half of the building will be food and beverage services.

Yeah, I saw that too.

I mean, again, other than parking there wouldn't really be any.

Correct. And so parking would be on the street because there is a parking behind the building, but in looking at the EAF, et cetera, there's absolutely no impact at the site, so. Good for them for doing something good. Nothing has nothing in it. Absolutely.

You need to borrow index to bring any more lawyer. That's what it's like.

You just like Packers to damn national. They're going to come to work for the county. Yeah. So I'm not always concerned concerning that she worked for the counties. Well, actually, she did. All right.

The page voucher is doing the family, the patients.

So would it be the recommendation that we take no action or we just.

All the better.

I don't know. I will make them. All right. Then we'll second. All right. All right. All right. Last but certainly not least.

So the last one is what the other. drawing before. This is a project in Granville. It's an existing home. They're going to be constructing a single historic animal daycare and boarding facility. So they did provide a site map. I also looked at for a parcel map. One of the questions that I had, again, regarding access is if you look on a map, they call this road the old road. There is a parcel that's at the end of this road. So again, I am this end of the parcel, the road itself bisects the parcel that is being developed. Again, it is unclear as to whether this is an abandoned public road, a public road, or a private road. Because the access, the road goes directly through their parcel.

And it's not showing a right-of-way.

It's showing this. And the map calls it Old Road. But there is a parcel at the end of it, which is not developed. It's just wooded. And so the house below it, where they talk about its agricultural fields and its farms, That appears to me that it's actually accessed directly from Route 149. So I would just want to make sure that, you know, again, they're putting in a dog kennel and they're going to have customers driving in and out. I would just want to make sure that it didn't impact access to that kennel.

I guess looking at this, where is this? I don't get where the road's running. I guess it's this little thing here.

Yes. So this is the parcel that I'm talking about, owned by Green Mountain Slaves.

You've got the road. You see a very faint line, which I'm assuming is the road.

That's what I'm saying.

That's this right here.

So I don't know whether it's a public road, an abandoned public road. At one point, it looks like it is clearly a road.

As it, on the pictures, it looks, you know, it's kind of a, it's not a paved road.

It says old road bed. Yeah, and that's why it calls it the old road bed. So I don't know if it's an abandoned road or not. And then it says up here, fresh stone dry.

And that's 140 minutes. 140 minutes here. Yeah. We don't know what's going on.

This is very, very faint. It bisects their parcel. Right. It looks like it's just, it's just a stone drive that connects them into the apartment was not been

landmark person right then the question becomes you know who's got does green mountain slave have a right to control it or right are they access it do they access it we don't know we're going to put it on this back parcel because we can't see the other side of that part what does that mean Is there a host?

I mean, again, I would suggest that's probably a local planning board concern, but I'm pointing out that it's something that should be taken into consideration.

What's a good idea?

Do you have another access point further up 22? The green mountain site. The green mountain site. It looks like it.

i'm starting to see it looks like the indian river borders that property too it runs right through it yes there's a lot of water no and it looks like they're animals just adjacent to the house kind of small The opposite side. It's like there's an alpaca on the other side there. Yes. Do they have any local regulations relative to these type of facilities in Granville that you're aware of?

This is in the town, not the village.

Um, no, not that I'm aware of, but I believe the state legislation on us still pending, right? Still on the side on the animal board. So what are you talking about?

New order 26 seal of new regulations.

Uh, yes. That part is going to happen. Licensing and regulating. That's, that's, that's really done.

I think the node's just partially here. Is the x, y, the, what is it actually going to be? Actually on. It's actually a sysgraph, a sysgraph.

You can see they put it on the map, Dave. They've drawn on the channel down here.

Look at this here. Actually, Jones, Jones-Adams versus Nathan-Adams.

So it looks to me like it's right here, looking at the map, this area here. That's where I'm going to put it.

The building itself is going to be about 2000 square feet. I saw it on the media.

Yeah, it did. I got to look back at it.

Here, it's right here. That's it. I should have went to the screen. I should have went to the screen. I should have went to the screen. Praise for having one of his own.

So the two parcels that are currently in ag land are the Philip Lieber and the Frank Weierstrass.

That was a bar. I never spent any time on it. The corner. This is a problem. Correct.

That was I rose to reverse it. They own the boat. This is that positive room there. They own those parcels. And do you know, Tim, about wetlands? So they did include an EAF mapper, but we all probably know that FEMA mapping is very incomplete. There is no digital mapping. So their response is, it's incomplete. We have no mapping for wetlands. But again, it appears to me that the kennel is fairly distant from it. It almost parcels.

I did just look that up, Dan, the Safe Boarding Act, which is on the assembly.

Yeah, you still got all the Article 26C, which passed last time, which has all the other regulations. Any of the municipal shelters, George, that didn't... By the way, I did know they are putting in septic. So as you do, excuse me, dog washing, there's gray water, they're putting in a

a dry well to retain the gray layer. We have a couple of dry wells.

I think there's a dry well.

Not all are concerned, right?

That's all the projects. I do have a report of final action.

You may recall a few months ago, the Village of Hudson Falls sent their Clean Air Act to this board for review, which essentially monitors the burn plants in Hudson Falls and says if they are not compliant with particle standards, Hudson Falls is reserving the right to shut the burn plant down. So we, this board committee, whatever we are, sent the matter back to the Village of Hudson Falls as a matter of local concern, but with the comment that since DEC is the official regulatory agency, this should be in consultation with them. And we also suggested that, you know, if the burn plant were to be closed down, that has the potential to have significant countywide impact. So we recommended that they do a countywide impact setup. The village of Hudson Falls denied our recommendation and basically said that DEC as the Florida agency wasn't doing their job and that the county had essentially ignored all regulations when the burn plant was built. And therefore, why should Hudson Falls worry about the county, which was essentially what the letter said. So again, that, you know, with the super majority, it is their right to override our recommendations, which in fact they did. So they're from practice.

They relieved us all liability.

Pretty much. Yeah. That's all I have.

Who else have anything? We're good enough. Planning agency problems. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.